Harrison Ford confirms Blade Runner 2 discussions

So weird, for years I was like the only guy who thought being human was better than the replicant reveal. I don't mind people feeling otherwise but I felt like the lone voice in the wilderness, where were you guys? .

My biggest problem with the "unicorn means Deckard is replicant" idea is that (according to one "clue") somehow Gaff knew exactly which thought to reference with his origami. Deckard talks earlier with Rachael about her memories of being young. She starts a story and he finishes it, knowing how the false memory goes. But Deckard daydreams at the piano (unless it really is a memory and unicorns exist in the BR universe) and Gaff even knows about that errant thought? Nah.

Click to expand...

On a certain level, what's the difference? It wouldn't be a real memory, it would be equivalent to a false memory. It stands to reason that if they can implant false memories such as the one described by Rachael and Deckard, they can implant unicorns.

No to what? Batty & co. not being able to have their lifespans "undone"? Because that was pretty clearly presented in the film. It's not like a switch you can flip or something. On the other hand, if Deckard is a replicant who survives to Ford's current age, we would assume him to not have had the short lifespan in the first place.

My biggest problem with the "unicorn means Deckard is replicant" idea is that (according to one "clue") somehow Gaff knew exactly which thought to reference with his origami. Deckard talks earlier with Rachael about her memories of being young. She starts a story and he finishes it, knowing how the false memory goes. But Deckard daydreams at the piano (unless it really is a memory and unicorns exist in the BR universe) and Gaff even knows about that errant thought? Nah.

Click to expand...

On a certain level, what's the difference? It wouldn't be a real memory, it would be equivalent to a false memory. It stands to reason that if they can implant false memories such as the one described by Rachael and Deckard, they can implant unicorns.

Click to expand...

What I mean is, it's clearly not a memory in any way unless unicorns are real, so (if taken as proof that Deckard is a replicant) it implies that Tyrell Corp. not only implanted memories into Rachael and Deckard but potentially every little passing thought that runs through their mind on a daily basis. Which would make them (in my mind) even less human than the other Nexus 6 replicants.

I prefer to see the unicorn in a less prosaic light. That Deckard daydreams of a unicorn, and when later Gaff leaves a piece of origami to tell Deckard that he has been there, rather than it throwing Deckard's whole worldview into question, he sees it as one of life's wonderful little funny coincidences.

But as I say, the real beauty of it all is that there is no true answer. The director says one thing, the actor and writer say another, the audience get to decide for themselves. Some resolve to watch it again this weekend for the umpteenth time.

My biggest problem with the "unicorn means Deckard is replicant" idea is that (according to one "clue") somehow Gaff knew exactly which thought to reference with his origami. Deckard talks earlier with Rachael about her memories of being young. She starts a story and he finishes it, knowing how the false memory goes. But Deckard daydreams at the piano (unless it really is a memory and unicorns exist in the BR universe) and Gaff even knows about that errant thought? Nah.

Click to expand...

On a certain level, what's the difference? It wouldn't be a real memory, it would be equivalent to a false memory. It stands to reason that if they can implant false memories such as the one described by Rachael and Deckard, they can implant unicorns.

Click to expand...

What I mean is, it's clearly not a memory in any way unless unicorns are real, so (if taken as proof that Deckard is a replicant) it implies that Tyrell Corp. not only implanted memories into Rachael and Deckard but potentially every little passing thought that runs through their mind on a daily basis. Which would make them (in my mind) even less human than the other Nexus 6 replicants.

I prefer to see the unicorn in a less prosaic light. That Deckard daydreams of a unicorn, and when later Gaff leaves a piece of origami to tell Deckard that he has been there, rather than it throwing Deckard's whole worldview into question, he sees it as one of life's wonderful little funny coincidences.

But as I say, the real beauty of it all is that there is no true answer. The director says one thing, the actor and writer say another, the audience get to decide for themselves. Some resolve to watch it again this weekend for the umpteenth time.

Click to expand...

I think it's entirely possible that Unicorns are real in the world of 'Blade Runner'. If they can create replicant humans, owls, snakes and living teddy bears, why not a horse with a horn on it's skull?

So it could me a literal memory, or it could be implanted. There's really no way to tell. The real question here is how could Gaff possibly know what Deckard had on his mind? Maybe he didn't. Maybe Gaff has been having the same dreams because he's a replicant too?

Of course the real reason it's there is to justify Ridley using the 'Blade Runner' budget to pay for some sneaky R&D for 'Legend'.

Of course the real reason it's there is to justify Ridley using the 'Blade Runner' budget to pay for some sneaky R&D for 'Legend'.

Click to expand...

The unicorn footage was edited in to Bladerunner long after both movies had left theatres.

Click to expand...

A lot of things weren't edited into that film until years later.
Unless I'm mistaken that particular footage was still originally shot for Blade Runner and the point of the shoot was specifically so Scott could test things out before starting on 'Legend'.

Bummer. The only reason I would have possibly wanted to see a Blade Runner sequel is because Ridley Scott was directing. Without him it just seems even more unnecessary (and that's even after factoring in how much of a disappointment Prometheus was).

Bummer. The only reason I would have possibly wanted to see a Blade Runner sequel is because Ridley Scott was directing. Without him it just seems even more unnecessary (and that's even after factoring in how much of a disappointment Prometheus was).

Well I'm out. Blade Runner 2 staring Harrison Ford and directed by Ridley Scott is something I'd like to see. I don't give a crap about new characters searching for Deckard, I want a story about Deckard. Plus Scott passing the directing torch tells me he's not all that interested in the project anyway.

To be fair, another director could probably make a stronger and more faithful sequel than Scott at this point, since he hasn't exactly been doing the best work of late. But I still think I'd be more interested in seeing Scott's version (even if it did end up being a disappointment) than one by someone else who was simply mimicking his style.

I'm disappointed that Ridley Scott isn't returning. Blade Runner is my favorite film and that's largely due to Ridley Scott's directing. I'm not very keen on a sequel, even if Harrison Ford is returning (and the search for Deckard is not appealing at all), and the lack of Scott decreases me interest even further.

I was hoping for Harrison Ford to have a leading role in this with Scott as the Director. What we will now get is some young pretty faced actor with no chops and a Director that is only popular with people under the age of 13.

It was Scott's vision more than anything that made me interested in this.

I'm totally okay with a new director and Ford having a smaller role in the sequel. In the interview, it was said that Scott and original movie screenplay writer Hampton Fancher camp up with the new script, and as a producer, Scott will still be involved in how the sequel will come together visually and tonally in the final product, even with someone else driving the car.

And it's not like Ford's Deckard won't be very crucial in the movie. I think his involvement will be more than just a cameo. It's also been more than 30 years--it may be good that the sequel may move things along from the first film, maybe even setting the stage for a second sequel or more.

I'll be interested to see it. It needs a fresh approach if there's going to be a sequel. Ridley Scott is well past his sell by date and I'm as interested in seeing fossils from the original doing cameos than I was at seeing original ST cast members in the new films.

Whatever happens it won't affect the original. One more sci fi movie being made is almost always a good thing, as my friend Pingfah will agree.

Does having an old Harrison Ford in the movie mean that Deckard is definitively not a replicant?

Click to expand...

Yeah that's the other thing that kinda bothers me. Even though I never bought that he really was a replicant, I've always loved the movie's suggestion that he could be. And that after he enters that elevator at the end you're not sure if he goes on to live a long life or dies a year later when his four-year lifespan runs out. And I'm afraid a sequel involving an older Ford would remove that wonderful ambiguity once and for all.

Unless they try to argue that he somehow has Data's ability to "age", which would just seem a little too silly to me.